The Alaska Supreme Court considered a post-appeal amended order despite procedural error and upheld termination because the record established neglect and failure to remedy.
The Alaska Supreme Court held that a child aged ten or eleven cannot nullify a GAL’s waiver of psychotherapy privilege, but may seek protection under CINA Rule 9’s balancing test.
The supreme court held that the superior court could specify a reasonable width because the 1966 instrument did not do so. When an easement grant is silent, a court may supply terms reasonably necessary for enjoyment of the right. Because the landowners did not show that 60 feet was unreasonable or unnecessary, selecting that width was not an abuse of discretion. The central error concerned location, not width.
The court held that TCC qualifies as an arm of its member tribes. Its analysis considered the method of creation, the organization’s purposes, tribal control, the tribes’ intent to share immunity, and the financial relationship between TCC and its members. TCC’s state-law incorporation counted against immunity, and a small number of its member communities are not federally recognized tribes. But the remaining considerations carried greater weight: tribes organized TCC as a successor to a traditional Interior governing body, every member village elects a board representative, and TCC delivers core governmental services. Member tribes also authorized TCC to provide health services under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), a federal statute that permits tribes to administer programs otherwise provided by federal agencies. That authorization supported both tribal intent and a sufficiently close financial relationship.
The Alaska Supreme Court held that legislative immunity prevented courts from reviewing a legislative ethics committee’s investigation and disposition of a complaint against a senator.
The Alaska Supreme Court upheld a trust amendment that largely disinherited one son, deferring to findings of testamentary capacity and no undue influence.
The Alaska Supreme Court held that Civil Rule 60(a) permitted a trial court to correct custody findings drafted by counsel that materially departed from the court’s oral ruling.